Checked to see if my guns were stolen...?

[J.R.@A&M]

Thanks very much for all the comments. I am in the process of having a lawyer write the Chief.

I just now took out my yellow carbon copy of the warning, and noticed some additional information that I might have included originally.

Under "OTHER CONDITIONS" the officer wrote Weapons Chkx2 - Neg Ruger; Derr.. The NAA isn't a derringer, but never mind.

Under "VEHICLE SEARCH" he checked the box for No.

Under "TYPE OF SEARCH" he did not check the box for CONSENT, but he did check the box for INVENTORY. I take this to mean that he searched some of the vehicle's inventory, namely my weapons. This looks to me as if he thought he did not need my consent, since he didn't check that box. Else I am misinterpreting this form.

Under "CONTRABAND FOUND" he checked the box for No.

[Bob in Big D]

There is one other possibility and that is that there could have been a rash of stolen guns in the area and the Officer was doing his job.
All but two of my guns were bought used. Am I 100% sure mine were not stolen........not really, maybe 98% sure none were stolen, but you never really know. It might have helped to ask the officer if this is SOP for him and his department.......just sayin.

[KC5AV]

Maybe he was just doing his job, but it still boils down to a potential 4th amendment violation. Some people take that stuff pretty seriously.

Steve, what if the officer had declared that he was disarming the OP for 'safety reasons', and then announced that he was running the serial numbers to determine if the guns were stolen? The officer already has possession of the weapons.

[srothstein]

Maybe he was just doing his job, but it still boils down to a potential 4th amendment violation. Some people take that stuff pretty seriously.

Steve, what if the officer had declared that he was disarming the OP for 'safety reasons', and then announced that he was running the serial numbers to determine if the guns were stolen? The officer already has possession of the weapons.

This is the one where you get questionable on the search. Clearly, if he made the correct announcement, he could legally disarm. And there is an old policy that an officer can check anything he can see if he can legally see it. This is the plain view doctrine (if I am in a legal place and I can plainly see something, it is not a search). If I legally disarm him, and the pistols are in my possession, their serial numbers might come under the plain view doctrine.

I don't remember the case citation, but to show how confusing this gets there is also a contradictory case. An officer was making a legal check of a pawn shop. There was a stereo on display he thought might be stolen. He turned it to see the serial number and search it. The court ruled it was an illegal search since the officer had to turn the stereo. If the serial number had been on the front, then it would have been in plain view, but the turning made it otherwise. I use this illustration because the officer was legally where he could be and any customer could legally have turned the stereo to see the back. If the officer disarms you, can he legally turn the pistol to read the serial number to run it? Probably, IMO, but he could not open the cylinder or remove the grips, etc.

And if this officer has a smart sergeant, he would teach him to do it this way. Tell the CHL you want the pistol for safety and run the serial number without telling the CHL. If nothing comes back, the search is never known to the citizen and there is no problem, even though it may still be illegal. If something does come back, you can use that to talk with the CHL and determine if he is a victim (most probable) or the thief. You may not be able to use the search (if the DA says it was illegal) as evidence against the CHL, but you at least recovered the gun for its rightful owner.

[gemini]

There have been several posts regarding various Leo's running serial numbers off CHL carry guns.
Does anyone have proof that any Texas CHL has been "caught" with a stolen gun they were carrying? Is
there a data base for this info that can be accessed?

[Mike1951]

Under "TYPE OF SEARCH" he did not check the box for CONSENT, but he did check the box for INVENTORY. I take this to mean that he searched some of the vehicle's inventory, namely my weapons. This looks to me as if he thought he did not need my consent, since he didn't check that box. Else I am misinterpreting this form.

I was under the impression that 'inventory' was only done incidental to arrest.

[gigag04]

Can an LEO do that? Isn't that an illegal search if you refuse? (though you obviously did not refuse)

I'm not sure. I knew he had the general authority to disarm me. Once in possession of your firearm, I don't see anything to stop them from running the serial number or whatever. I had just never heard this stated before. Does that then put you at more risk if you buy a gun from a pawn shop not knowing how it got there?

Nope - pawn shops, by law, are required to run their pawn tickets through the local PD. The newest detective or two usually gets pawn ticket duty. All the new pawn tickets are run through TCIC/NCIC database by at least the serial number, if not an owner inscribed mark (have your DL # put on valuable property, like that new plasma TV).


I would consider running your SN of your guns through TCIC/NCIC a search, and I would decline. If he asked to disarm me I would allow him to (if I was only a CHL holder), and tell him that I do not allow him to run my guns to see if their stolen. It seems like an utter waste of time for the officer anyway...he would have no reasonable suspicion that the guns are stolen.

[gigag04]

Under "TYPE OF SEARCH" he did not check the box for CONSENT, but he did check the box for INVENTORY. I take this to mean that he searched some of the vehicle's inventory, namely my weapons. This looks to me as if he thought he did not need my consent, since he didn't check that box. Else I am misinterpreting this form.

I was under the impression that 'inventory' was only done incidental to arrest.

That's all part of the state mandated demographic tracking that is an utter waste of time. We have to log a number of things like reason for stop, action taken (warning, cite, arrest), race, gender, city residency (y/n), and if you search. If you do search, you have to log why, and if you find contraband. There is also some noise about juvenile curfew violations and their age. I do this through the computer, and the violator never sees it.

Somehow, somwhere, there was someone that thought this would combat racial profiling...so they legislated it.


</off topic>

[JNMAR]

I would consider running your SN of your guns through TCIC/NCIC a search, and I would decline. If he asked to disarm me I would allow him to (if I was only a CHL holder), and tell him that I do not allow him to run my guns to see if their stolen. It seems like an utter waste of time for the officer anyway...he would have no reasonable suspicion that the guns are stolen.

While I don't have a lot of experience in dealing with LEO, I do have some. It tells me that even though I might be perfectly within my rights to refuse his "offer" to check my weapons to see if they're stolen, a refusal, or any challenge of his/her presumed authority for that matter, is almost certainly going to guarantee that I get a ticket instead of a possible warning for whatever infraction he used to stop me for in the first place. As I have matured I've learned that sometimes the pleasure is just not worth the pain.

[anygunanywhere]

I would consider running your SN of your guns through TCIC/NCIC a search, and I would decline. If he asked to disarm me I would allow him to (if I was only a CHL holder), and tell him that I do not allow him to run my guns to see if their stolen. It seems like an utter waste of time for the officer anyway...he would have no reasonable suspicion that the guns are stolen.

While I don't have a lot of experience in dealing with LEO, I do have some. It tells me that even though I might be perfectly within my rights to refuse his "offer" to check my weapons to see if they're stolen, a refusal, or any challenge of his/her presumed authority for that matter, is almost certainly going to guarantee that I get a ticket instead of a possible warning for whatever infraction he used to stop me for in the first place. As I have matured I've learned that sometimes the pleasure is just not worth the pain.

Giving up rights to not get a traffic ticket makes no sense to me. When I am stopped for an infraction I always assume I am going to get a ticket not a warning. I have recieved one warning out of all my traffic stops, and I suspect that the officer was on a fishing expedition for drugs. The stop was very early in the morning hours and the officer appeared to have realized he had stopped a good guy when I acted appropriately by performing the proper steps (windows down, engine off, lights on etc.) during the stop and being a CHL holder. My CHL is not a means of avoidinig tickets. If I get caught in a driving offense I deserve a ticket.

I have only been searched twice, once as a teen and once when I was in the military. I was not aware of my rights then but I doubt it would have made any difference. Long stories not relative to this discussion.

Now when I am stopped, I only answer questions pertaining to the stop. I do not respond to fishing questions and I do not respond well to being lectured especially by HPD officers bent on revenue generation. I will also not submit to any searches. I have never been disarmed but I will not accept it quietly as I am not a hazard to any LEO and I do not accept being disarmed for my safety. If my safety is at rsik then the LEO should disarm as well. My firearm is presenting no more of an issue than his is presenting.

I always turn my tickets over to an attorney who normally gets me deferred adjudication and probation. It is cheaper than paying the fine usually and I do not have to take driver ed. I never go to court.

I have toned down my driving habits recently and reduced my speeding tendencies. I figure that if I minimize the risk of being pulled over I then have less to worry about with respect to these issues.

[RPB]

Why do you need two revolvers? I

Because Massad Ayoob said to, I understand he is a law enforcement officer training instructor, and even Courts say he is an "Expert." So, I followed his advice.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... _84145947/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Ayoob on Handguns lessons from the past: Three reasons to carry backup

If you don't know who that is ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massad_Ayoob" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[LAYGO]

Is it within their rights to ask the locations of the weapons? To ask if you're armed as a CHL, ok, but to know where, if it's loaded, if you have more than one?

I have to remember to fire up my voice recorder on my phone every single time when I'm stopped.

[TrueFlog]

Giving up rights to not get a traffic ticket makes no sense to me. When I am stopped for an infraction I always assume I am going to get a ticket not a warning. I have recieved one warning out of all my traffic stops, and I suspect that the officer was on a fishing expedition for drugs. The stop was very early in the morning hours and the officer appeared to have realized he had stopped a good guy when I acted appropriately by performing the proper steps (windows down, engine off, lights on etc.) during the stop and being a CHL holder. My CHL is not a means of avoidinig tickets. If I get caught in a driving offense I deserve a ticket.

I have only been searched twice, once as a teen and once when I was in the military. I was not aware of my rights then but I doubt it would have made any difference. Long stories not relative to this discussion.

Now when I am stopped, I only answer questions pertaining to the stop. I do not respond to fishing questions and I do not respond well to being lectured especially by HPD officers bent on revenue generation. I will also not submit to any searches. I have never been disarmed but I will not accept it quietly as I am not a hazard to any LEO and I do not accept being disarmed for my safety.

Amen, brother. If I committed a violation, then I deserve the ticket. Either way, I am not going to sacrifice my civil rights for a chance to get out of a ticket. They're way more valuable than a few hundred dollars. I'll show him my DL/CHL, and if he asks whether I'm armed, well I can't answer any questions without an attorney present. If he asks where or how I'm carrying, I still can't answer any questions. I would , however, like to know if I'm being detained or if I'm free to go. If he wants to pat me down or disarm me, I won't physically resist, but I won't help him either. I'll just put my hands on my head and state clearly that I do not consent to any search or seizure. Am I more likely to get a ticket this way? Sure, but it's a small price to pay for protecting my civil liberties.

Is it within their rights to ask the locations of the weapons? To ask if you're armed as a CHL, ok, but to know where, if it's loaded, if you have more than one?

I have to remember to fire up my voice recorder on my phone every single time when I'm stopped.

He can ask, but you have no legal obligation to answer. The only possible exception would be if you showed just your DL but not your CHL. When he runs you DL, it will tell him that you also have a CHL. He could then question and/or search you under the suspicion that you committed a crime by not showing your CHL while carrying. That's why I always show both my DL and CHL, even if I'm not carrying.

[flintknapper]

Bullwhip, KC5AV, and TAM combined have the correct answer.

The law does not give a peace officer the "general authority" to disarm you. It specifically says he can disarm for safety (yours, his, or others).

When He/She "reasonably" believes it is necessary.

So.... looks like the cure for individual/departmental "policy" to disarm.... would be to require the officer to articulate WHY or WHAT about the stop caused them alarm.

Many times there is a dash-cam recording. If so....a visit to the station (and police chief) should be able to turn this up for "review". I'd wager...that if this happens enough times..."disarms" would become much rarer than they are.

Only the citizenry can make this happen, it isn't going to change on LE's account.

Where I live (small town USA), I do not believe there is any departmental "policy" to disarm...but I am certain it exists other places.

I am equally certain that some CHL's act sufficiently nervous (or suspicious) when stopped....as to warrant concern by the officer....so the law is a good one in those cases.

[C-dub]

If I am ever in this situation I hope I am polite when I do not give my consent for the search.

Only once in my life have I only been given a warning by an officer and I could have been arrested and not just given a speeding ticket. I was 18y and a few days. I saw the officer pull out and lights go on. As soon as I was out of his sight I pulled off the road and around the back of a junkyard to wait for a bit to see if the officer passed on by. About 10 seconds later the officer pulled nose to nose with me. I didn't move and he was very polite realizing I was terrified out of my wits by now, having just done something so stupid. I also had my 14y old brother in the car with me. The dust could kicked up by my car led him right to me.